If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Everyone with a job should move out of California, along with the businesses that hire them. No tax money, no way for politicians to buy votes.

I used to think my home state was a great place. 40 years a ago. It has slide off the left coast into the libtard zone.

25 years for me since I seceded from CA. Never been happier, more fulfilled, closer to nature and nature's God than since the day I landed permanently in Dixie. We started making plans to move while the fires were still burning just blocks from our home during the Rodney King riots. Less than a month later, we were gone. Never, ever looked back or regretted it, not even for a second.

No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

I say YES let them go, wait a few years for the whining people to move in and build a wall and a dam, take them off the electric grid and see how they do. They can then make Whoopie Goldberg president of their crap hole. Don't forget to charge them 35% on their exports either.

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk

While I can't agree with you on the "let them go" bit because as I've explained in detail it's impermissible, I do think that the charging of fees on exports and other penalties (as punishment for their secession effort, particularly once a proclamation of insurrection has been made) are certainly going to be part of the picture - and soon.

In fact, I think that there will not even need to be a proclamation of insurrection for federal aid to be blocked to California because California has state laws on the books which essentially make many aspects of the State activity much of a "Sanctuary" type arrangement; and a new law has been proposed by de Leon called the "California Values Act" which would if signed into law make the entire state a "Sanctuary State" in entirety. But due to a law that Pres. Bill Clinton signed into law, which has not been enforced (but would be in President Trump's administration), cities that claim to be Sanctuary Cities and / or states that refuse to cooperate with or refuse to provide information to immigration officials, can be denied federal aid.

The types of aid under the law passed by Pres. Bill Clinton which could be blocked from being received by California on day one of Pres. Trump in office are many but not all federal aid types.

However nearly all federal monetary sources which currently supplement California's revenue would be suspended in the event of a Presidential proclamation of insurrection (with respect to secession measures moving forward).

Fun times. I look forward as a CA resident to seeing CA legislators get what they deserve - more losses. Break out the buckets, time to collect those libtears.

While I can't agree with you on the "let them go" bit because as I've explained in detail it's impermissible, I do think that the charging of fees on exports and other penalties (as punishment for their secession effort, particularly once a proclamation of insurrection has been made) are certainly going to be part of the picture - and soon.

From Article I section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

From Article I section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Hello Quiet Observer,

You cited Article 1 Section 9 of US Constitution. It's an interesting point you make because elsewhere I have noted that the State of California is already in direct violation of the Commerce Clause (which is related to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”). Specifically, I am referring to:

SB 1235 (passed in July 2016) and Prop 63 (passed by voters of CA in November) both prohibit the shipping of ammunition direct to a customer's door (which constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on commerce (see Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, Edwards v California (1941), and consolidated cases of Granholm v Heald and Swedenburg v Kelly [in which U.S. Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, found state laws that prohibited out-of-state wineries from selling wine over the Internet directly to consumers violated the Commerce Clause]).

To wit: “Held: (...) This Court has long held that, in all but the narrowest circumstances, state laws violate the Commerce Clause if they mandate “differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter.” (Granholm v. Heald (2005)), (Swedenburg v. Kelly (2005))

I mention that as an aside, because California is already in flagrant violation of the Constitution with respect to the Commerce Clause and this is an issue which means that CA needs to have its laws challenged in court on those issues, to have the laws (SB 1235 and Prop 63) overturned.

But that is a different point than what you make. You suggest that, and I quote,

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."

If I understand you correctly, you are implying that this would mean that "charging of fees on exports and other penalties" that I suggested as a punishment to California for their secession effort would not be permissible under our US Constitution. I understand your point, but I disagree, because what I am suggesting would not be a tax. The penalty could also be structured to avoid it being legally construed as a duty. (In economics, a duty is a kind of tax levied by a state. It is often associated with customs, in which context they are also known as tariffs or dues. The term is often used to describe a tax on certain items purchased abroad.)

Finally, imposing "charging of fees" on items that come out of California would not be a Constitutional problem. (It would be challenged in the courts by California, but I think it would hold up under legal review at the US Supreme Court level.) This is because, as you pointed out, "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another" -- Any fees imposed which would be understood as punishment against California for secession effort would not be made as regulations of commerce or revenue as applicable to ports. They would apply to other areas such as to products which are shipped by ground or airplane (which in fact do not involve ports) or via internet (which also do not involve ports). If a court were to strike down such a law which were to have in it a fee punishing California, it would not matter because Congress could pass a law which would withdraw federal aid anyway.

It should be noted that due to the US Supreme Court cases I've mentioned, I don't think that anyone in some state other than California can legally keep Californians from shipping goods directly to the door of customers who might want to buy something from a Californian. (The result of the court cases did not only have implications for the winemakers in CA and NY who brought the case to overturn a ludicrous CA law, but also have implications for anyone anywhere who wants to ship a product of any kind direct to a customer's door; the US Supreme Court considers that activity protected by the Commerce Clause).